Transcription

2 your reference Señor Ministro Juan Manuel Uribe Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible Calle 37 # 8-40 Bogotá Colombia your letter our reference OS25 O96/Sh/vf enquiries to I.A. Steinhauer direct phone number +31(0) Date: 8 March 2013 Subject: Advisory Review of EIA report on El Varadero Canal, Cartagena, Colombia Dear Minister Uribe, In December 2012, you requested the Netherlands Ambassador in Bogotá to assist you with an independent quality review of an EIA report for the El Varadero project. The Ambassador has reacted positively to your request and contacted the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment to perform this review. It is my pleasure to submit herewith the Advisory Review of this EIA report, prepared by a working group of the Commission. I would like to draw your attention to the following: First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for the excellent organisation of the visit and the personal interest demonstrated by your Vice Minister, Mrs. Adriana Soto and staff of your Ministry. Also the interest of the Vice Minister of Infrastructure of the Ministry of Transport and some of his staff during the visit is highly appreciated. The visit has allowed the Commission to receive a wealth of information in a short period of time. As has already been presented during the de-briefing at the last day of the Commission s visit in Cartagena, the Commission has some overall remarks. It is very much appreciated that during our visit a great interest was demonstrated in the project and the EIA report by many stakeholders. This has also led to closer involvement of relevant parties in the process and offered an opportunity to exchange information and experiences and share concerns and opinions. The attitude of the proponent is open and transparent, showing the wish to design and execute the project in such a way that it is environmentally and socially sound. The information for decision making on the environmental license is currently scattered, consisting of the EIA report of December 2011, additional information to the EIA report which became available in January 2013 and within a few months, new information will

3 become available on sediment quality and relocation of corals. In addition, the Commission has identified some essential shortcomings. Once all this additional information is available, I would recommend to bring everything together into one final EIA report, which is then complete for decision making. This will also enhance transparency and accountability to other public and agency stakeholders interested in or affected by the project. This final EIA report should also contain a well balanced summary of the information, with focus on the relevant issues for decision making and easily understandable for non-experts. The Commission summarizes the main review findings in Chapter 2 of this advice. These findings overlap partly with the concerns of your own Ministry. This information is considered essential for good quality EIA to be of use for effective and well balanced decision making. My advice is to provide additional information on these specific issues in a supplement to the EIA report before decision-making on license granting. Other information gaps and shortcomings observed by the Commission can be addressed after decision making on the license, either before or during project implementation or as part of the monitoring plan. For your convenience, I summarize these main shortcomings as follows: - The compliance of the proposed activity with the legislation and regulations is not clear, nor its embedding in relevant policies, plans and programs; - It is unclear whether or not proponent and competent authority have the same perception of the magnitude of the dredging operations; - The results of a recent sediment sampling campaign, and the possible consequences of the findings on water quality in and around the project area have to be incorporated in the EIA report; - The same holds true for the findings of the study that is currently ongoing with regard to coral relocation. Also, compensation for the mangrove areas and sea grass beds that will be affected by the project need further specification; - The hydraulic modelling exercise is very important in coming to conclusions on expected changes in the physical system as a result of project implementation. As such a thorough, independent, quality check of this part of the EIA report is advised. - A wealth of information has been gathered and a lot of effort has been made to understand the behaviour of the coastal/lagunal system under changing conditions. The description of the present situation is complete and well illustrated with graphs, tables and photo s. However, the EIA report is not presented in such a way that it facilitates decision making on the environmental license; the information is partly too detailed, sometimes irrelevant and there is insufficient emphasis on the real significant impacts. - The monitoring programme is insufficiently detailed and should not only address the project implementation phase, but also the project's operational phase. - The process of stakeholder involvement is not yet completed, nor have all the relevant stakeholders been involved. Finally, I would like to remark that we have intended to review all information according to the Terms of Reference and Colombian EIA legislation. However, we have also taken international best practice on EIA into account. This is the reason for some of our remarks on project alternatives, although we are aware that elaboration of alternatives is not required for this project according to your regulations. Nevertheless, during our visit, the issue of alternatives was raised several times. Therefore we think that a clear and transparent summary of the

4 findings of a comparison of alternatives, clearly stating whether and how environmental and social considerations played a role in the selection, will greatly add to better understanding amongst relevant stakeholders and justification for the project. I would appreciate to be kept informed on how you will use this advice and wish to express our availability to continue co-operation with your Ministry in the next stages of this EIA for the El Varadero project. This could for example be through reviewing the additional information on the coral relocation once this becomes available and if you would consider this to be useful for further decision making. Yours sincerely, Rudy Rabbinge Chairman of the NCEA Working Group EIA for the El Varadero project, Cartagena CC.: Vice Minister of Infrastructure of Ministry of Transport Mr. Javier Hernández López Royal Netherlands Embassy Bogota Mr. Robert van Embden Mr. Maurice Valentijn van Beers Ms. Martha Arévalo

5 Review of EIA report for dredging of el Varadero access canal to Cartagena Bay in Colombia Advisory review submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development in Colombia, by a working group of the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment in the Netherlands. the technical secretary the chairman I.A. Steinhauer Prof.dr.ir. R. Rabbinge

6 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Background Request of the Colombian Ministry for Environment and Sustainable Development and involvement of NCEA Expert working group and scoping mission Approach taken by the NCEA MAIN REVIEW FINDINGS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES General Project objectives and justification Legislative and regulatory considerations and policies, plans and programs8 3.4 Institutional framework and procedural requirements Public and agency involvement DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES General Dredging Dumping and sand nourishment Mitigating measures Compensating measures DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT AND ITS AUTONOMOUS DEVELOPMENT General Natural environment Socio-economic environment Autonomous development IMPACTS General Impacts on the natural environment Impacts on the socio-economic environment Construction related hazards and risks MONITORING...23 Appendices 1. Letter with request by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development 2. Correspondence between Netherlands Ambassador and the Ministry and NCEA 3. Project information and composition of working group 4. Working program February Map of the area 6. List of documents received prior to, during and after site visit to Colombia -1-

7 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The Bay of Cartagena, Colombia, plays an important role in the regional and national economy, especially through the development potential of its port. To accommodate expected growth in numbers and sizes of ships, a new access canal (2 km long, 200 m wide and 19,5 m. depth) is being planned (see annex 5 for map). The existing entrance canal has reached its maximum limits and depths. The dredged materials will be deposited in two sites at sea and will partly be used for replenishment of beaches as well. The project initiator is the Corporación Promotora Canal del Varadero (PROCANAL). PROCANAL has prepared an EIA report for this project (December 2011) and contracted HIDROCARIBE LTDA. for its elaboration. 1.2 Request of the Colombian Ministry for Environment and Sustainable Development and involvement of NCEA In January 2013, the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) received a request from the Colombian Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development through a letter dated 7 December 2012 to the Netherlands Ambassador (see appendix 1), to perform an independent quality review of the EIA report for the above mentioned project. The Ambassador has reacted positively to this request and contacted NCEA 1 (see appendix 2a and 2b). The expected project impacts, as mentioned in the letter, can be summarized as follows: - removal of vegetation (including mangroves) - removal and transplantation of coral reefs - sediment dispersion in the Cartagena Bay, potentially affecting marine ecosystems, tourism and fisheries - change of coastal geomorphology The National Agency of Environmental Licenses (ANLA) and the Direction of Coastal and Marine Issues and Aquatic Resources (DAMCRA) have serious concerns and have specified these in the letter of the Environment Minister. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, through ANLA, is the National Competent Authority for Environment and has a formal role in the granting of the environmental license, which is required for this project. The EIA report forms the basis for the environmental license. 1 In the past there have been NCEA activities in Colombia. From 1999 till 2001 the NCEA reviewed and monitored an EIA report in the Cartagena region, working together with a regional branch of the Environment Ministry, CARDIQUE. On SEA, the NCEA has had an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, ) with the Environment Ministry, with a number of activities. In 2010, the NCEA issued advice at the request of the Netherlands Embassy related to an EIA report for the Bahía de Malaga and contributed to a seminar in Bogotá on EIA and SEA in the mining sector. -3-

8 1.3 Expert working group and scoping mission This advice is prepared by a working group of experts of the NCEA. The group represents the NCEA and comprises expertise in the following disciplines: aquatic ecosystems (especially coral reefs), marine biology, ecosystem services, water resources management, coastal zone management and EIA and SEA application. The composition of the working group can be found in appendix 3. For the preparation of this advice, the working group visited Colombia from 17 to 23 February During this period, the working group visited the project site and met with stakeholders in Bogotá and Cartagena. The programme of the visit is outlined in appendix 4. During its stay in Colombia, the NCEA was accompanied by professionals representing the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. Their names are also listed in appendix 3. The NCEA wants to emphasize that it has no opinion on the feasibility or acceptability of the El Varadero project. The objective of the advice of the NCEA is to guarantee that all essential environmental and socio-economic information has been provided for sound and well balanced decision-making and through a transparent and inclusive process. 1.4 Approach taken by the NCEA In the EIA report of December 2011, the proponent indicates that use has been made of Colombian sector guidelines for EIA for dredging projects for deepening of access channels to sea ports (PU-TER-1-01) of The NCEA took these, and the Decree 2820/2010, which regulates the process of environmental licensing in Colombia, as a point of departure. NCEA also used its own practical international experience in relation to reviewing EIA for comparable dredging projects 2. Just a few days prior to its visit to Colombia, the NCEA un-officially received another set of information on the project, which revealed that there did exist project and site specific guidelines/terms of Reference, issued by ANLA in January 2012, just after the EIA report had been submitted. Appendix 6 lists the documents that the NCEA received: - with the letter from the Environment Minister requesting independent advice; - just prior to its visit to Colombia; - and during and after the visit. The aim of this review is quality assurance. On the one hand, the NCEA checked whether the EIA report contains the information it should, in line with the regulations and the (sector) guidelines. At the same time, NCEA verified whether the EIA report contains adequate, accurate and sufficient information (on environmental and socio-economic impacts and on options/alternatives to deal with these) that is needed for decision making on this project. In the case of serious shortcomings, the consequences for decision making are assessed and 2 - Terms of Reference for, and review of, EIAs for Dredging and Land Reclamation projects in Vilufushi and Viligili, Maldives, 2006 and Review of an EIA for dredging from the Amaluza reservoir in the Paute river in Ecuador,

9 recommendations will be given for supplementary information needed to address these shortcomings. 2. Main review findings The NCEA is of the opinion that the EIA report is in general well written. Information is provided in understandable and accessible language and presented in a consistent and clear manner. The EIA report is based on clearly described methodological steps and a significant amount of information has been gathered and is accompanied by maps and figures, which increases comprehensiveness. The NCEA nevertheless concludes that the EIA report shows essential shortcomings and recommends to provide additional information on these specific issues in a supplement to the EIA report before decision-making on license granting. These shortcomings are: Regarding the project itself - An assessment of compatibility with, and compliance of, the intended activity with national, regional and local policies, plans, programs and legislative and regulatory considerations is lacking. Particularly developments in the area, such as future expected use of the Cartagena port, including possible induced development and associated impacts in future are not assessed. If such compatibility and compliance cannot be achieved, the supplement to the EIA report should elaborate how potentially conflicting objectives will be addressed; - Assurance should be given that the perception of size and magnitude of the works as perceived by ANLA and other stakeholders, does not deviate from the actual plans. Regarding sediment quality - Gaps in information still exist regarding the outcome of the latest sediment sampling and analysis program. When the outcome of this program gives reason to expect negative impacts of the dredging on water quality (heavy metals, algal blooms, anoxic conditions) mitigating measures have to be defined in the supplementary information to the EIA report; - Insight in the quality of the sediment is also relevant to assess possible consequences of re-suspension and dispersal of the sediments on the water quality, and ultimately the biotic environment, in and near the dump sites. Regarding coral reefs, mangroves and sea grass beds - The description of the relocation methodology of corals is not clear in the EIA report regarding e.g. description of dislodgement of colonies, handling, transport and reattachment. A critical issue is the destination area(s) of the corals, including the criteria for selection of such areas. These issues will be addressed in a study that is currently being undertaken and should be added as supplementary information to the EIA report, to be able to better detail the aims and methodology with regards to compensation measures of biotic communities; - As to the destination area of the mangroves, the rationale for Caño Lequerica is not explained, nor whether other sites have been considered, e.g. areas closer to the Abanico isle; -5-

10 - The EIA report does not clarify whether compensation for the impacted sea grass area is considered and/or legally required, and how such compensation would be done. Regarding modeling of erosion/sedimentation, waves and currents and salinity - Actual and future (with project) erosion and sedimentation patterns in the project area, and covering the whole Cartagena Bay, are not established; - Ship movement induced waves and current have not been modeled nor their impacts assessed on coastal stability of e.g. Baru island, nearby coral reefs and the forts of San Fernando and San José; - Residence times of the water and salinity distribution in the whole Cartagena Bay, with and without the project, have not been assessed; - Given the importance of the modeling exercise in coming to conclusions on expected changes in the physical system as a result of project implementation (overall the changes are predicted to be limited in magnitude, or only affect a small area) and consequently the required mitigating measures, a thorough independent quality check of this part of the EIA report is advised. CIOH in Cartagena could probably do this and conclusions could be presented in the supplementary information to the EIA report. Regarding presentation of base line information and impact assessment - It is in particular the baseline information in Chapter 3 of the EIA report that fails to provide focus for decision making. The supplementary information to the EIA report should add a summary on baseline information relevant to the key issues for impact assessment; - The impact assessment in Chapter 5 of the EIA report does not add to understanding how the coastal-bay system reacts to project induced changes as impacts are described in an excessively general way. Supplementary information to the EIA report should concentrate on a small number of significant impacts that really matter and more attention should be given to the cumulative nature of many of the impacts, as the system is already stressed. Regarding monitoring - The proposed monitoring for the abiotic environment is insufficient to assess whether or not adverse changes occur and whether or not additional mitigating measures are required and should therefore be extended and further detailed; - A monitoring program, to monitor the water quality in and around the dump sites during project execution is lacking; - The monitoring program for the biotic environment must include monitoring of at least the success rate of coral relocation, the success rate of transplantation of other reef organisms and the success rate of compensation measures of mangroves and sea grass beds; - Above parameters should be monitored during protect execution, but also in the project s operational phase, at least until a new equilibrium has been reached; - The EIA report does not indicate who is responsible for checking whether monitoring indeed takes place and is implemented according to the monitoring plan. In general, more details are required on the (government) institutions responsible for the monitoring, the way implementation is funded, as well as locations, frequency and duration of the monitoring. -6-

11 Regarding stakeholder involvement - The EIA report fails to provide arguments why certain specific stakeholders were considered and other stakeholders not. Chapters 3-7 discuss these issues in more detail. This information is a necessary condition for good quality EIA to be of use for effective and well balanced decision making. In these chapters, the NCEA also mentions other issues although not essential for decision making at this stage that are not yet sufficiently dealt with in the EIA report. These information gaps and shortcomings can be addressed after decision making on the license, either before or during project implementation or as part of the monitoring plan. 3. Project justification and project objectives 3.1 General The site specific Terms of Reference of ANLA (January 2012), mention in Chapter 1 some issues related to objectives (1.2), antecedents (1.3) and scope (1.4) which triggered the following observations by the NCEA on project objectives and justification of the project, legal and institutional framework and public participation. 3.2 Project objectives and justification The EIA report contains a clear definition of the short term objectives of the proposed activity, however, the reasons for the project are not very well explained. Nor is it clear what the long term objectives are: the EIA only briefly mentions a possible amplification of the canal to 400 m or more in future. The NCEA is aware of the fact that some of this information is available (e.g. presented during the visit to Colombia) but it is not given in the EIA report. Recommendation: The EIA report should provide more details on how the project fits in overall developments such as: - Developments in the area (and country as a whole), such as future expected use of the Cartagena port (is there a master-plan or similar available?), including possible induced development and associated impacts in future; - Developments in the international shipping industry (fleet development); - How the expected economic benefits as a result of the project relate to or impact the ecological, cultural and maritime potential of the Cartagena Bay. In the EIA report, the problems which are expected to be solved by realization of the project are stated in relatively clear terms and the underlying causes are analyzed. However, reasons for the selection of the current dredging project as the best solution out of several project alternatives are lacking in the EIA report. -7-

12 Recommendation: The EIA report should describe 3 which project alternatives have been considered (such as Cartagena in comparison to other ports, and the Varadero Canal in comparison to Bocagrande and Bocachica) and give arguments why these alternative locations were not selected. The EIA report should contain a clear and transparent summary of the findings of this comparison of alternatives, clearly stating whether and how environmental and social considerations played a role in the selection. The project activities are restricted to dredging and sediment disposal. However, the EIA report should also clearly address preconditions for successful implementation of the project, and indicate required follow up and/or parallel activities to fully contribute to the solution of the problems as identified in the EIA report. Currently, the EIA report does not describe these related requirements and developments, e.g.: - The extension of quays, jetties and berths etc.; - Additional dredging activities of the existing port; - Construction of new access roads, etc.; - Required systems for signaling, pilotage, tugboats, etc; - Plan for ship movements; - Increased risks of ship collisions, required emergency plans. Recommendation: Although it is clear that these preconditions and parallel/follow-up activities are beyond the responsibility of this project, the EIA report should describe these in order to have an overview of what else is needed to improve the long terms sustainability of the project interventions. 3.3 Legislative and regulatory considerations and policies, plans and programs Chapter 2 of the EIA report gives an overview of relevant (inter) national norms and standards and laws and regulations, but lacks a description of environmental and socio-economic preconditions or restrictions these may put on the project. Some examples of potential restrictions that the NCEA came across during its visit were related to the following regulations and plans: - the requirements related to the Area de Manejo especial de la Bahía de Cartagena y del Canal de Dique 4 ; - an overlap with the boundaries of the Marine Protected Area of the Corales del Rosario and San Bernardo and its implications for the project; - paragraph 1 of article 207 of the Law nr of 2011, which mentions that coral reefs and mangrove areas can not be affected by certain activities; 3 The NCEA is aware that the description of alternatives is not specifically required according to the ToR. However, it would greatly contribute to the better clarify the justification of the project. 4 As mentioned in letter of 19 august 2011, of Director of eco-systems to Director of licenses, permits and environmental procedures of MAVDT. -8-

13 - lack of clarity about whether or not (small scale) fisheries are allowed in the Bahía de Cartagena; - implications of the Plan de Turismo Naútico de Colombia (under development). Recommendation: The EIA report should assess compatibility with, and compliance of, the intended activity with national, regional and local policies, plans an programs and legislative and regulatory considerations. If such compatibility and compliance cannot be achieved, the EIA report should elaborate how potentially conflicting objectives will be addressed. The NCEA has noted that e.g. the issue of overlap with the Marine Protected Area has recently been addressed in an informal report by Hidrocaribe. However, this information should be made available to the relevant authorities for consideration. 3.4 Institutional framework and procedural requirements During its visit, the NCEA noted that not all institutes and/or organizations involved and/or interested in the project had seen all the documents elaborated by the proponent. There are some parties that did not know the project at all, such as the Ministry of Culture and the Tourist Corporation of Cartagena, just to mention a few. Moreover, the process of commenting on (interim versions of) the EIA report (through the conceptos ) is not very clear to an outsider, for example: - Who is asked to comment when and for what reason?; - How are the comments grouped and dealt with?; - Do the ones that elaborated the conceptos get feed-back on their observations and who is responsible for such feed-back? In the opinion of the NCEA, it was remarkable that during the visit DAMCRA seemed to be in the lead (e.g. through the organization of the program, chairing meetings etc), where formally it would be more logical for ANLA to play this role. The reason for this was not clear to the NCEA and might also be confusing for other stakeholders involved. Recommendation: Although not strictly required by the site specific ToR, international best practice has shown that the quality and transparency of the EIA report greatly enhances by a clear description of the institutional framework and procedural requirements related to EIA in Colombia, including competent (licensing) authorities directly involved in the execution of the project and in the control and maintenance of the executed works. 3.5 Public and agency involvement The site specific ToR in Chapter 1.4 state that the EIA report must contain a description of the stakeholders in the project and how their opinions and interests influenced the contents of the EIA report. These stakeholders include: - National, regional and local government agencies with formal responsibilities in environment and social welfare; -9-

14 - National and international organizations (including NGOs) involved in the implementation of the project and follow up activities; - Local fishermen possibly affected by dredging works; - Project beneficiaries, etc. As part of the EIA, indeed a very extensive consulta previa (required for indigenous, afro-descendent and gypsy communities) took place in the second half of The process seems to be well documented and a pre-agreement was reached with these communities on compensation of project impacts. Recommendation: The EIA report should indicate which stakeholders were involved and provide arguments why other stakeholders were not considered. The NCEA has the impression that the public participation process has not yet been fully developed because: The communication between parties involved could be better. Not all parties are aware of the present status of the project and EIA. There is confusion about the ToR and EIA report status (additional info was presently just recently, January 2013) and new information is still being brought in on e.g. heavy metals and coral reef transplantation. The distribution of the roles of the various participants in the process is not always clear to everybody; This additional information (now available and being developed) should be discussed again with the relevant communities, as this may lead to an adjustment of the pre-agreement of Moreover, in a discussion with representatives of the communities during NCEA s visit, they indicated that they were willing to play a more pro-active role in contributing with local knowledge in the EIA process and in environmental and social monitoring of project implementation. Recommendation: The NCEA recommends to develop a clear and transparent public and agency participation strategy on the additional information that became and will become available after the EIA report of December Such a strategy also should indicate how stakeholders will be involved in project execution and its environmental management plan and follow-up. -10-

15 4. Description of the project and alternatives 4.1 General The EIA report gives an overview of project activities, namely: Dredging of approximately m 3 of mud, sand and eroded rock; Dumping the dredged materials at two disposal sites at sea; Re-use of materials to protect the Abanico island (4.2 ha, m3) and to nourish some beaches in Bocachica with sand ( m3). The latter is combined with the construction of 4 breakwaters; Relocation of selected coral reef components such as coral colonies and compensation for a mangrove area including transplantation of mangrove vegetation; Relocation of a sub-marine cable; Restoration and abandonment of temporary structures and equipment used; Environmental monitoring. The project execution is expected to take about 17 months. It is noted that ANLA in its letter to the Sociedad Promotora Canal de El Varadero, dated January 23, 2012, accompanying the project specific ToR for the EIA, assumes a length of the canal of 1500 m, a width of 200 m and a depth of 18 m. The assumed amount of material to be dredged is m 3. Yet other dimensions are given in the background report on the protection of the Abanico island and the beaches of Bocachica. In this report ( Estudio técnico de ingeniería hidráulica y costera: alternativas de disposición del material de dragado para la regeneración de playas y obras marítimas, Hidrocaribe, January 2013) the depth of the canal is given as 19 m, whereas the total amount of material to be dredged is given as m 3. Even the EIA report itself is not completely consistent. On page 38, a total amount of material to be dredged of m 3 is mentioned, whereas the next page, page 39 mentions 6.6 million m 3. The same inconsistency in figures is also noted concerning the amounts of sand needed to protect the Abanico island and to nourish the beaches in Bocachica. In the EIA report amounts of and m 3 respectively are given, while the above mentioned study states amounts of m 3 (for the preferred alternative in Bocachica) and m 3 for the preferred Abanico island protection alternative. Recommendations: The NCEA recommends to check information related to the size and magnitude of the operation as given in de EIA report, in the various background reports and in presentations on the project and to make this information consistent. It is also recommended to make sure that the perception of size and magnitude of the works as perceived by ANLA, does not deviate from the actual plans. -11-

16 4.2 Dredging Proposed activity The EIA report describes the following aspects of the dredging activities: Location and size of dredging area on a map; Justification for the selection of this location/alignment; Quantity and quality of dredged material (including place, date and depth of sampling and results of the laboratory analysis); Method and equipment used for dredging, including the arguments which form the basis for choosing this technical alternative; Duration of the dredging activity; Labor requirements; Emergency plan in case of accidents, collisions, fires, explosions or spills (diesel, grease, oil). The NCEA considers the description of the dredging activities too limited. A general indication of the equipment to be used is given (backhoe for the fine sediments, suction dredging for the coarser, deeper located sediments), but it is not yet firmly decided how the dredging will be done. The report contains statements like the removal of the material may be done with a backhoe and the option is still open to use backhoe dredging for the whole project. Also a clear description of how the dredging will be organised, including a description of positioning system, depth control system and operational control procedures (full continuous or daylight operation schedule) and transport of the dredged material to the dump sites ((floating) pipeline, barges (size, number of movements required, etc)) is not given. Recommendation: The description of the dredging operations in the EIA report has to be adapted. The final choice of equipment has to be given and more details on the mode of operation have to be provided. This is particularly valid for the way in which sediments will be transported to the dump sites. The information on the quality of the material to be dredged as presented in the EIA report is considered insufficient. The number of samples taken is limited and only samples of the top-layer are taken. This gives insufficient information to be able to assess the likelihood of remobilization of heavy metals, organic material and nutrients in the water column during dredging operations. As such, possible toxic impacts on biota, and the possible occurrence of algal blooms and anaerobic conditions can not be predicted. However, NCEA is aware of the fact that recently an extended sediment sampling and analysis programme has been carried out. The results will be available in Colombia by now. What is missing in the description of the dredging activities is a programme to monitor water quality during the dredging operation. Such a programme should be focussed on monitoring suspended solids, heavy metals, nutrients and organic carbon in the water. This monitoring is needed to be able to take appropriate mitigating measures when threshold values are surpassed. Possible mitigating measures to avoid harmful conditions related to water quality are insufficiently described in Chapter 8 of the EIA report, the Monitoring Plan. -12-

17 Recommendation: The NCEA recommends to incorporate the outcome of the latest sediment sampling and analysis program in the EIA report. When the outcome of this program gives reason to expect negative impacts on water quality (heavy metals, algal blooms, anoxic conditions) mitigating measures have to be defined. A monitoring program has to be developed to monitor water quality at and near the site during dredging. Dredging alternatives The EIA report considers alternative locations of the canal. Criteria for selection are given and a preferred option, the alignment that causes least damage to the coral reefs, is selected. Regarding ways of dredging, also 2 alternatives are given, by backhoe or by suction dredging, as well as their criteria for selection. Basically, fine sediments in shallow locations will be dredged by backhoe, coarser sediments, to be dredged in deeper water, by suction dredger. The EIA report does not yet give a final choice. Alternatives related to the way the sediments will be transported to the dump sites are not discussed in the report, nor are considerations given regarding the time of the year/day (tidal cycle) that operations should be suspended. The latter deserves some thought since current prevailing during part of the year or the tidal cycle might transport sediments and contaminants to valuable and sensitive ecosystems, notably coral reefs. Recommendations: The EIA should more clearly explain the selected way in which the dredging will be carried out (see also the section on proposed activity above). Alternative ways for transport of the sediments to the dump sites need to be presented, as well as their criteria for selection, and the way in which environmental and socio-economic considerations are taken into account in the selection of alternatives. Finally, varying conditions over the year/day may render certain periods of the year or day less suitable for dredging/dredge disposal operations, since prevailing currents are towards precious ecosystems, that may then be affected by sediments or contaminants. This topic merits some attention in the EIA report. 4.3 Dumping and sand nourishment Proposed activity The EIA report describes: Location of the two dumping sites at sea; Location and design of two sand nourishment areas (on a map), namely beaches at Bocachica and Abanico island; Composition and amount of the material to be dumped/nourished at each site; Distance of transport; Description of safety measures during this phase. The NCEA considers the description of the dumping and sand nourishment locations and process too limited. Part of these shortcomings are related to shortcomings in the description of the dredging activities as discussed above: ways of transport of the sediments to the dump sites are not discussed, the quality of the sediments to be dumped is insufficiently known -13-

18 and clear criteria for the choice of the locations are not given. Considerations on variations in current direction and velocity over the day/year, rendering certain periods of the day or year unsuitable for dumping, are not given. Furthermore, a description of the ecological value of the sediment receiving seabed is lacking, as is a description of a monitoring program, to monitor the water quality in and around the dump sites during project execution. On the other hand, the NCEA is of the opinion that the reasoning to dump the fine, more contaminated sediments, that disperse easier, further at sea and to store cleaner, coarser sediments that disperse less at a location near the coast from where they may be reclaimed for beneficial use at a later point in time, is valid. Also the idea to use part of the dredged material to stop/prevent further erosion of the Abanico island and the beaches in Bocachica is supported in general terms. Recommendations: More insight has to be provided in the quality of the sediment dumped at each of the sites and the possible consequences of re-suspention of the sediments on the water quality, and ultimately the biotic environment, in and near the dump sites. Considerations on variations in current direction and velocity over the day/year, rendering certain periods of the day or year unsuitable for dumping, should be given and taken into account when planning the dumping schedule. The ecological value of the sediment receiving seabed should be described. A monitoring program, to monitor the water quality in and around the dump sites during project execution has to be designed. Alternatives for dumping and beach nourishment The EIA report does not investigate possibilities for alternative: locations of dumping sites and nourishment areas. The 2 dumping sites and nourishment locations at Bocachica and around Abanico are given without a clear justification for the choice. The criterion used for the selection of the preferred alternatives was the coastal development, based on analysis of waves and currents, but other criteria such as environmental and social considerations were not taken into account. The choice for Abanico however seems plausible as this will compensate for the removal of part of the island. The choice for Bocachica is not really clear, as also in other areas there are problems with coastal erosion; alternative ways for transport of sediments from the dredge site to the dump locations are not given. The Estudio técnico de ingeniería hidráulica y costera: alternativas de disposición del material de dragado para la regeneración de playas y obras marítimas, Hidrocaribe, January 2013 on the other hand, discusses in detail the final design of the sand nourishment at Bocachica and near Abanico island. For each site, a number of alternative approaches for the ways of sand nourishment is given and discussed. Recommendation: The EIA report should contain a discussion on alternative locations for sediment dumping and sand nourishment, as well as on the way in which the sediments will be transported from the dredge site to the dump/nourishment sites. Criteria taken into account in the selection the alternatives must be made explicit. -14-

19 4.4 Mitigating measures Chapter 7 of the EIA report, Environmental management plan, gives a number of forms ( fichas ) that describe the proposed mitigating and compensating measures, for both the abiotic and the biotic environment, as well as for the socio economic aspects. Abiotic environment The measures to mitigate the impacts on the abiotic environment are subdivided in: measures to prevent impacts of the dredging operation; measures to prevent impacts of the sediment dumping; measures to prevent impacts on the water quality; measures to prevent impacts on air quality. On the forms, some specific measures are proposed, e.g. the use of silt screens to prevent the dispersion of re-suspended sediments. However, most of the proposed measures are stated in very general terms or only the objective of the measure is given, without detailing the actual measure itself. For example under the Sediment management, the following is stated: Large scale dispersion of dredged material will be controlled and avoided in such a way that there will be no effects on the coastal zone, especially in the dump sites, and the waters and ecosystems adjacent to the project area. This will involve bathymetric surveys prior to commencement of the dredging activities, in order to keep a statistical record of the volumes generated (EIA report Chapter 7, page 13). This does not actually say what needs to be done to prevent the dispersal of re-suspended sediments. Cost estimates provided are very general and lack detail. Other forms, for example those dealing with water and air quality are much more complete in the sense that actual measures to mitigate impacts are given. Recommendation: The description of mitigating measures, aimed at preventing negative impacts on the abiotic environment needs to be improved. Not only the objectives should be stated but also the actual measures to be taken. This is particularly the case for measures aiming to reduce the impacts of the dredging operation and the sediment dumping. Biotic environment The measures to mitigate the impacts on the biotic environment are described in forms B1, B2 and B3 of Chapter 7 of the EIA report: - B1 is about the removal of the mangrove area in Abanico island and the management of associated flora and fauna; - B2 is about protection and conservation of mangrove habitat; - B3 contains a conservation program for endangered species, especially fish. B1 is in fact not a mitigating measure, but part of the project activity, since dredging cannot be executed without removal of part of Abanico Island. B2 and B3 describe some additional protection and conservation measures, mainly consisting of capacity building activities to project personnel and fishing communities, which however do not seem directly related to impacts caused by the project. -15-

20 Socio-economic aspects The mitigation measures of socio-economic character are described in Chapter 7, S1-S5. These mainly deal with capacity building of project staff and local communities on the project and its Environmental management plan, local labour contracting and community activities. The program S5 on archaeological investigation already seems to be completed, and no archaeological remains were found. 4.5 Compensating measures Abiotic environment The EIA report gives two measures to compensate for the loss of part of the Abanico island: sand nourishment around Abanico island and on the beaches of Bocachica. Apparently these measures have been requested for by local communities. The sand nourishment around Abanico island will stop/slow down the on-going erosion of the island and as such compensates for the loss of part of the island. The sand nourishment at Bocachica will stop/slow down the on-going beach erosion in this area. This beach erosion is not induced by activities of the project and as such this measure is not really a compensating measure but more an additional beneficial component of the project. The design of both measures is well detailed in the Estudio técnico de ingeniería hidráulica y costera: alternativas de disposición del material de dragado para la regeneración de playas y obras marítimas, Hidrocaribe, January Details on the way in which the measures will be executed (how is the sand transported?, will bulldozers be necessary? etc.) is largely missing. Cost estimates are given in the above mentioned study. Recommendation: The EIA report should give more details on the way in which the sand nourishment compensation projects at Bocachica and Abanico island will be executed, to be able to assess whether this is done according to best practice and to judge whether any adverse impact could occur and how these should be mitigated. Biotic environment Chapter 7 of the EIA report gives three compensation measures for the removal of mangrove vegetation (B4), compensation for coral reef removal and associated fish fauna through nurseries (B5) and relocation of the coral reefs (B6). B6 is in fact to be considered as a project activity. A period of 3 months has been estimated for this, prior to the start of the dredging activity. Concerning the compensation for the mangrove area (B4), the proposed target area is el Caño Lequerica del Canal del Dique. It is stated that this area is only indicative and that the final destination area will be decided in coordination with CARDIQUE. The EIA report indicates that an area of sea grass will be affected by the dredging activity. It is not clear whether there will be compensation for this. -16-

- Relevance and Objectives 1. Scope of the Dutch German Exchange (DGE) The Netherlands and Germany have large river systems such as Danube, Rhine, Meuse, Elbe, Weser and Ems, which have important hydrological

1 Proposed Terms of Reference for EIA studies Base line data collection will be collected for the Post-Monsoon season 2016 (September to November 2016) in study area and 10 kms radius from project site.

QUÉBEC DECLARATION ON ECOTOURISM In the framework of the UN International Year of Ecotourism, 2002, under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Tourism Organization

Operational Policy Statement Adaptive Management Measures under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Purpose This operational policy statement (OPS) provides best practice guidance on the use of adaptive

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS The methods that are used to conduct the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the Project are described in this section. The EIA uses a methodological framework

Pollution Response RESPONDING TO AN OIL SPILL Most oil spills within New Zealand waters are likely to happen close to the coast or in harbours. This makes it extremely difficult for responders to prevent

Annexure-IV PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.0 Proposed Scope of Work for EIA Study The components of the EIA study include: Detailed description of all elements of the project activities (existing and proposed

Appendix A. The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 2850) is added to Division 3 of the Fish and

Cairns Shipping Development Project Environmental Impact Statement Fact Sheet The Cairns Shipping Development Project seeks to widen the channel into the Port of Cairns from 90m to 130m through the removal

Protected Area Categories and Management Objectives A protected area is defined as: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural

TERMS OF REFERENCE for an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for a PROPOSED RESORT DEVELOPMENT at BIG AND LITTLE PELICAN CAY PORTLAND BIGHT, ST. CATHERINE, JAMAICA TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 4 1. Executive

CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a comparison of the and its alternatives as described in EIS/EIR Section 1.8.3 (s Evaluated in this EIS/EIR) and analyzed in Sections

National BiodiversityStrategyandActionPlan (NBSAP),St. Lucia page 8 Resource tenure and access Most agricultural lands, and a majority of forest lands, are privately owned. Two significant trends can be

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Species at Risk Act Listing Policy and Directive for Do Not List Advice DFO SARA Listing Policy Preamble The Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Species at Risk Act (SARA) Listing

Reef Magic Education and Research Field trips. Links to the Australian Curriculum v6.0 Science Year Level Biological Science Description Foundation Living things have basic needs including food and water.

LIQUID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY MENDIS ROAD, HUDSON CREEK DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR A PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Introduction The purpose of this Public Environmental Report (PER) is to provide the Government

Environment and Development Journal Law LEAD INDONESIA - LAW ON WATER RESOURCES, 2004 VOLUME 2/1 LEAD Journal (Law, Environment and Development Journal) is a peer-reviewed academic publication based in

Page no: 1 of 10 1. Purpose and scope 1.1 The purpose of this note is to provide guidance on the approach that we will take when dealing with hydropower development management consultations. We welcome

RESOLUTION MEPC.127(53) Adopted on 22 July 2005 GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS (G4) THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX [ ] (2013) XXX draft Proposal for a RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Providing minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (especially

ICRI Resolution on Artificial Coral Reef Restoration and Rehabilitation This Resolution was tabled and discussed at the ICRI General Meeting in Seychelles on Wednesday, 27 April 2005. It was approved after

GREAT BARRIER REEF Climate Change Action Plan 2007 2011 Climate change is now recognised as the greatest long-term threat to the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is internationally renowned as

Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea The Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean

GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE STATE PARTY REPORT ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE BELIZE BARRIER REEF RESERVE SYSTEM (BELIZE) (N 764) February 2015 WHC Decision 38 COM 7A.31 Thirty-eighth Session Doha, Qatar

IUCN Guidelines to Avoid Impacts of Water Resources Projects on Dams and Other Water Infrastructure (December 2013) IUCN does not engage in projects which involve the design, construction or rehabilitation

ENVIRONMENT ACT PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT NOVA SCOTIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS Beaver Bank Bypass Highway 101 to the Beaver Bank Road Halifax County,

How can BBOP help companies? This document is intended for developers who are considering undertaking a biodiversity offset and may welcome help from the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP).

Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy December 15, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 7-5700 www.crs.gov

ATTACHMENT F ONSHORE PIPELINES DECOMMISSIONING GUIDELINE 1. INTRODUCTION After concession is expired or at the end of its economic life, pipeline network and all associated structures are due for decommissioning

ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING DOCUMENT Guide to Preparing an Environmental Scoping Document 1. Introduction Where the EPA decides to assess a proposal under the Public Environmental Review (PER) process, the EPA

U.S. Army Corps A Learning Organization The Corps is committed to the protection of coral reefs and the effective mitigation of any impacts. The Corps believes that there is a need to improve the understanding

Interim Technical Guidelines for the Development of Environmental Management Plans for Underground Infrastructure Revised - July 2013 Rationale Underground infrastructure may be at risk from valley, streambank

HERITAGE PROTECTION, ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT... AN UNSUSTAINABLE TRIO? A Brief Study Of The Development Of Falmouth Within The Context Of The Cruise Ship Pier Laleta Davis Mattis

Marine and coastal ecological potential for the economic development of Colombia Dr. M.J.C. Rozemeijer and Dr. A. Makaske Marine and coastal ecological potential for the economic development of Colombia

Rose House Circular Road Douglas ISLE OF MAN IM1 1AZ PORT ERIN CABLE REEF PROPOSAL Summary of responses to the consultation 30th July 2009 The enclosed summary of views received as part of the consultation

Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose... 4 1.1 What Is a Objection Certificate for Development and Infrastructure Projects?... 4 1.2 Why Is an NOC Required?... 4 2.0 Scope... 4 2.1 What Development and Infrastructure

Green Infrastructure Case Study Template The aim of the exercise is to provide information on how the elements of the Green Infrastructure Strategy are implemented at national level and to provide case

Restoring the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef: - an important component of ecosystem based management International Symposium on Marine Nature Restoration Copenhagen 11 th -12th March 2013 Jon Day

5 JUNE 2015 MINISTERIAL MEETING OF THE BLUE WEEK 2015 We, Ministers responsible for Ocean/ Fisheries/ Maritime Affairs, having met in Lisbon on June the 5 th, 2015, at the invitation of the Minister of

Biological Diversity and Tourism: Development of Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism in Vulnerable Ecosystems Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Foreword The rapid and often uncontrolled

Dwejra A Coastal Nature Park Introduction Dwejra is an important and very popular site in the Maltese Islands found on the North West coast of the island of Gozo. The site is famous for it natural beauty